"King Haarahld VI"-class, paint art

Well Charis is not Britain so David Weber can call its Navy whatever he wants to.

chrisd wrote:I am REALLY annoyed (Mainly with myself) that this vigorous thread has been so active while I am on holiday over 6000 miles from my reference library.
(I am in the same time zone as Novosibirsk, so this probably puts me east of Dilandu, as well as somewhat warmer, if wet)

Have any of the protagonists of this thread read the three excellent books by R.A.Burt on the evolution of the British Battleship, effectively from HMS Warrior up to the KGV class of WW2?

Incidentally, here on Planet Earth, the Royal Navy is the British Navy (although I have severe doubts about the way our politicians are treating it and I worry for its continued existence)
Then surely , on Safehold, the Charisian Navy should be the Royal , and now the Imperial, Navy, the RN not the RCN; the IN, not the ICN.
This would also be "sticking a metaphorical two-fingers up" at anything the lesser, CoGA supported, navies of Safehold do.

Just some random meandering thoughts on observation points.

I'm currently reading the most recent couple books in the series, so I haven't gotten into the ironclads yet, though there was some mention of the possibility of iron being used as framing in a recent passage, so it's possible that some of my comments are dated

I have no fear of spoilers though, so I read through the first few pages of this thread.

As drawn, I would be concerned. That rear observation post would be almost impossible to man to any good effect. A single forward observation post would probably be the only permanent observation post, I'd think.

However, there is an alternate solution to this, I'd say. This might or might not be something that's been used before. You have several smokestacks, why not build an observation post onto every smokestack? Your observers would be able to use a varying number of observation posts, depending on the speed of travel and the wind and atmospheric conditions. As a general rule, The worse the weather, the more observers you could have.

I do not know the exhaust temperature of this class of steam boiler at the point it leaves the smokestack. If it's above 140F then observation posts built onto the structure of the stacks might be problematic, as you would have severe issues with keeping people functional unless you built the observation posts well above the tops of the smokestacks. The ladders would also need to be insulated from the smokestack at the base, almost certainly, or they wouldn't be climbable without heat protective hand and footgear.

I've personally done manual labor in temperatures of 140+F, next to a steel mill's reheat furnace, with near zero humidity, and it was awful. It'll hurt you badly if you aren't very careful. I can't even imagine how bad it would have been in high humidity. Even if the lookouts aren't doing anything strenuous, you would have to shift them in and out regularly if the exhaust temperature of a stack created an environment at the observation platform of 120F+

If the Smokestacks are turned at the top, towards the back of the ship, it would probably be a lot more possible to put an observation post on them without endangering the lookouts. I know I've seen top-turned smokestacks, but I can't remember if I've ever seen them on images of real steam era warships.

**EDIT I found references to "Macks" a combination of Mast and Smokestack, which were used by a few warships. Here's the best image I found on short notice. The funnel is back-turned as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rawing.jpg

These apparently were not very kind to electronics mounted on the Macks. Safehold navies don't have that to worry about for the time being.

Cheopis wrote:**EDIT I found references to "Macks" a combination of Mast and Smokestack, which were used by a few warships. Here's the best image I found on short notice. The funnel is back-turned as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rawing.jpg

These apparently were not very kind to electronics mounted on the Macks. Safehold navies don't have that to worry about for the time being.

A good picture of MACKS are the USN's Albany and Galveston class CG and CLG

Working from memory here, but reading a friend's copy of the Admiralty "Manual of Seamanship" from the 189?'s shows the bow framing of the then current pre-dreadnaught battleships with a footnote having words to the effect that the "Spur" of the Ram is no longer fitted but that the water flow beneath the surface is benefitted and reduces the bow-wave formed.
(Note that most modern ships now have bulbous underwater bows for this reason)

Elsewhere, mention is made of the advantages and disadvantages of Inward and Outward turning twin-screws. One (Outward ?) gives approximately 2 to 3% (½knot in 18) increase in speed for the same Shaft Horsepower than the other at the expense of decreased response to the helm. The Admiralty seem to accept the increased speed (at full power) over the manoeuvrability.